2002 Toyota Tacoma

File: 1440718466252.png (136KB, 250x250px)

136KB, 250x250px

From what I've read on here they are generally viewed as perhaps the best truck in its age and size if it has been properly taken care off - but that they are generally priced a bit over what you'd call the "real value"

>>16870630
Unfortunately it will be kind of hard for finding 150k miles for 9k for either the Tundra/Tacoma or a 4Runner. If you do find one though, make sure the frame isn't rusted to hell. Also look into Nissan Xterras and Frontiers.

>>16870630
Tacomas and tundras are godlike. If it's under 200,000 and under 9k then I'd 100% pick one up if it's a v6 Tacoma or a v8 tundra. I drove the shit out of a 07 tundra all across the Continental US and had no problems at all. As for 4runners that gen is pretty good, it doesn't suffer from the rust issue that plagued 90's Toyota trucks and first and second gen 4runners. Plus the third gen doesn't have the 3.Slow like mine does.

>>16870730
>$9k
>200,000 miles
>godlike
>rusts in half even outside of the rust belt
>mid-size pickup
>towing
>all weather

I get that you like the Taco, but it does not sound at all like the best vehicle to suit the needs you listed.

Toyota's trucks and SUVs do not like cold environments where ice and/or road salt are regular occurrences, or a salt water beach for that matter.

The Tacoma is essentially going to be pushed to it's limit towing anything heavier than a lawnmower on a home made angle iron/plywood trailer. And keep in mind that while just under it's limit may look good on paper, it can make for a very bad towing experience

Pickups are inherently worse than comparable SUVs on icy roads roads due to the poor weight distribution.

While Tacomas are not unreliable, they are not the godmachines people make them out to be. Plenty of other pickups last just as long if not longer and do so under much more strenuous conditions.

>>16870814
No vehicle likes salt, and in my own experience there is no manufacturer that offers any decent rust protection for their cars from the factory. Saab offered their 9-3's with some sort of damned good undercoating here, but other than that I've never seen anything I like

Sure, some cars are a bit more plagued by rust than others when they are new, but when we're talking 15 year old trucks its 100% all about how its been treated

t. enraged cuck who drives a lightly rusted Toyota in a cold environment

>>16870646
>they are generally priced a bit over what you'd call the "real value"
If people wouldn't buy them at that price, sellers would be forced to lower it.
If people do buy them at that price, it's their real value.

File: 20170219_075639_resized.jpg (400KB, 1594x897px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1594x897px

>>16870858
You're right, but what I'm referring to is generally their quality vs value

I tested a fuckload of trucks before picking my Hilux, and its very easy to tell that they are a step above the King Cab/Navara, the L200 and the Ranger/BT-50 - but you are very quickly paying 20-25% more for a truck that has a less smooth ride (but better on rougher roads/offroad) with less equipment, more miles, more rust and so on. The question then remains if the build quality is worth that much.

For me it so far seems like I made the right choice, especially after I recently saw one of the King Cabs I was looking at still being up for sale, but now at a way lower price, and with an engine knock & rattling CV joint

>>16870630
Just rent a box truck to haul your shit across the country. It costs about 2500 bucks.

>>16870844
The point is not "They rust in the rust belt"
The point is "They rust at a much faster rate than other vehicles in the same environment with the same care"

Of course no vehicle likes salt, but some take better to it than others. Toyota just used a really a poor quality steel for the frames and made them too thin. I've heard it's only an issue on North American models but having not seen a global and NA market variant next to each other I obviously can't comment on the accuracy of that statement.

File: 4RunnerWoods.jpg (2MB, 2160x1216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2160x1216px

3rd gen 4Runner owner chiming in:

The 4Runners are generally speaking more affordable for the year/mileage in question. They are also made in Japan and the frames are not as susceptible to the rust issues that the Tacomas had, mind you at this age and depending on the locale, absolutely check the condition of the frame.

You need to decide whether you value having a bed or not. I personally like the SUV shape, and the roll down window allows for easy long-item hauling like lumber and such. Wheelbase is shorter than Tacoma, and coil sprung rear end articulates and rides better. For towing or heavy hauling I highly recommend adding some adjustable air springs in the back to level loads on the 4Runner. $9k would be easy to hit with a 4Runner. I've had my '96 Limited (v6, 4wd, auto, rear locker) with 121k listed for $7500 in the past with a full slate of recent maintenance done, and a spotlessly clean frame/underside.

Having said all that, if towing and cross country road tripping is the name of the game and not offroading, I'd argue the 3.4L Toyota as awesome and reliable of an engine as it is, isn't torquey enough compared to any number of domestic options. Also that tall suspension that gives you awesome clearance does no favors when towing, or especially in crosswinds.

If I were you I'd save a whole bundle of money and buy the cleanest, lowest mileage 2nd gen Explorer V8 that money could buy, and you'd still have like $5k from your budget to catch it up on maintenance/repairs, a new set of tires, etc. Or a GMT800 Tahoe, or clean gen 1 Durango, etc.

This is my honest opinion as a 'yotafag